We need long-term thinking on asylum and legal aid. As legal aid again comes under fire this week, it's hard to see how cuts to the legal aid budget will do anything other than cripple an already fragile service offering professional advice, support and representation to vulnerable, deprived people.

But railing against the cuts will do little to change things; the problem goes deeper than this. The fact is our legal aid system is in tatters and needs much more comprehensive reform.

As far as immigration is concerned, more radical reforms are needed if the legal aid bill is to be reduced. Legal costs are high because initial decision-making in asylum cases is so poor – more than 1,300 asylum appeals were successful in the first quarter of 2010 alone.

It's abundantly clear that treating the symptom will not tackle the underlying cause. Cases with poor or rushed representation at an early stage in the applications process result in delays and misunderstandings, all of which end up being reviewed and reassessed (at great cost) as the case progresses through the courts.

The longer a case goes on for (several years or more is not unusual), the more settled a migrant becomes - opening up the possibility of new claims to stay in the UK under the Human Rights Act, particularly if the migrant has a partner or children resident in the UK. The asylum system has improved greatly in recent years, but there's a long way to go before it delivers the fair and rapid decisions that are needed.

Like it or not, migrants who come to the UK to seek asylum deserve the right to legal representation. We accept in the criminal justice system that everyone has the right to be represented by a lawyer regardless of their guilt or innocence, and we ought to be able to accept that all asylum seekers have the right to representation regardless of the strength of their claim.

But the government does need to invest in good quality initial advice and decision-making in asylum cases if it is going to get the legal aid system back on course and reduce costs. Cutting legal aid without reforming the asylum system itself will push asylum seekers towards poor representation, overload legal aid practitioners who are already overstretched and overworked, and could result in an increased number of migrants slipping into irregular status and becoming difficult (and costly) to remove.

But responsibility for making the system work doesn't just lie with government. On the other side of the debate, it isn't good enough to just cry foul at any suggestion of cuts or reform. It is reasonable for the government to seek to limit the amount of money spent on legal aid, and everyone involved has to accept that the legal asylum/immigration process has an end – migrant-supporting groups have a role to play in managing asylum seekers' expectations, as well as defending their rights.

Some people will have to go home, and everyone who works on immigration and asylum should support the government to make the process of removal more effective and humane.

Asylum cases deal with matters of extreme suffering, and in some cases are matters of life and death. We owe it to these people to have a dignified and respectful process that allows a case to be presented in full to the Home Office and to the courts where necessary. Slashing the legal aid budget without reforming the asylum decision-making process at the same time will do little to promote justice for vulnerable people in need of protection, and may leave the taxpayer facing a bigger bill.

•Alice Sachrajda is a researcher for the Institute for Public Policy Research